- From: Ken Kipnes <Ken.Kipnes@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:45:20 -0500
- To: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org>, "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>, "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Doyle, This was actual captioning and not subtitles, is that correct? regards, ken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doyle" <dburnett@sesa.org> To: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu>; "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per discussion at 11/7 meeting) > > Good Morning From Icy Anchorage > > Anyway, to follow-up on our on-going discussion of simultaneous events > related to captioning of video, I did locate one bit of research that refers > to, "Time Spent Viewing Captions On Television Programs", American Annals of > the Deaf, Volume 145 #5 (if anyone wants the full citing, let me know). > > Although this research does not look at some of the specifics we were > addressing, it does look at the amount of time a deaf user spends looking at > visual content vs. captions and off screen events (looking away for some > reason). There were no differences between age group, sexes or types of > programming (type of television program). > > In short, 82% of a viewers time was spent focusing on captions (true for all > in study). When the caption speed was increased, the time spent on captions > went up to 86%. 2% of the time, those researched gazed off screen. > > I know this does not really address the full issue we were discussing but > maybe this will be helpful as we continue our dialogue. In essence, those > of us who are blind or sighted can listen to certain types of audio/visual > material and gather quite a bit of what happened without seeing the screen > while a deaf individual must be glued to the screen at least 86% of the time > to gather the same information. Guess this means they need a runner to go > grab them a cold beer...kidding! > > Anyway, hope this is a little helpful > > -- > Doyle Burnett > Education Specialist > Multiple Disabilities Program > 907-562-7372 > > From: "Paul Bohman" <paulb@cpd2.usu.edu> > > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 10:57:28 -0700 > > To: "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > > Subject: RE: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per > > discussion at 11/7 meeting) > > Resent-From: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > > Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:57:35 -0500 (EST) > > > > > > The concerns that Joe brought up about simultaneous captions and other > > visual content are valid concerns. Most of the time, captions can be > > viewed at the same time as the other events on the screen without too > > much difficulty, especially with practice. > > > > There are some cases where there may be some legitimate conflicts. For > > example, if the screen shows a lengthy list of sports scores at the same > > time that a voice in the background is explaining something (and not > > just reading the text on the screen), this could be difficult to follow. > > The viewer's attention would be divided between the captions and the > > other text on the screen. > > > > Still, as Joe pointed out, the norm right now for captioning would be to > > allow the captioning to proceed even if there is a potential visual > > conflict, requiring the viewer to pay attention to both the captions and > > the other visual elements simultaneously. It would be difficult for the > > WAI to require that all broadcasts be adapted from their original format > > to insert pauses where there may be a conflict with captioning and other > > visual elements. And it would be impossible to implement such pauses in > > live broadcasts. In fact, to truly implement this success criterion, > > directors, actors and script writers would have to change their > > procedures. The chef (to use the example from the previous message) > > would have to change her behavior. She would have to make sure that she > > explains nothing while performing the actions, and that she fully > > explains the actions either before or after performing them. > > > > But, as it stands right now, this is a Level 3 success criterion. > > Captioners would not be required to implement this technique at either > > the Minimum level or Level 2. Maybe we are justified in keeping this > > success criterion based on that fact alone, however... > > > > The real question is whether such a technique would be beneficial to > > users with disabilities. The user group that may benefit most may be > > those with cognitive disabilities, but this is just a guess. I don't > > personally know of any research in this area (though it may exist) which > > suggests that it would be better to not provide captions while something > > important is happening elsewhere on the screen. If research exists, and > > if this conclusion is accurate, then it would be wise to keep this > > success criterion in the guidelines at Level 3. If there is no body of > > research in that area, or if the research is inconclusive, I would > > recommend removing the success criterion. > > > > I say this because I can imagine one set of experts arguing that it is > > actually *better* to provide the explanation simultaneously with the > > demonstration (as in the chef example). I tend to think that it would be > > better for me if the visual demonstration and the verbal explanation > > occurred at the same time, even if it does require me to view captions > > and the visual demonstration simultaneously. I haven't researched this > > myself. I am only postulating, but if no one else has any solid research > > either, it may be better to leave this one out of the guidelines. > > > > Paul Bohman > > Technology Coordinator > > WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind) > > www.webaim.org > > Center for Persons with Disabilities > > www.cpd.usu.edu > > Utah State University > > www.usu.edu > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On > > Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:19 AM > > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > > Subject: Re: Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2 (UPDATED per > > discussion at 11/7 meeting) > > > > > > > > Amended as per discussion at yesterday's call: > > > > Level 3 success criteria > > > > 3. The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the > > visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content. > > > > and the modified informative example would be... > > > > A cooking video shows a chef preparing a recipe. The chef describes the > > ingredients and the process for each step and then performs the step. In > > this manner, deaf users can read the voice captions first and then watch > > the demonstration. > > > > Andi > > andisnow@us.ibm.com > > IBM Accessibility Center > > (512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able > > Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 12 November 2002 13:46:03 UTC